PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
176.45 - 178.59
86.62 - 184.48
124.91M / 173.95M (Avg.)
50.81 | 3.50
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
15.13%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MRVL's 4.41%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
13.22%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MRVL's 4.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
24.19%
EBIT growth similar to MRVL's 25.76%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
24.19%
Operating income growth similar to MRVL's 25.76%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
14.99%
Net income growth under 50% of MRVL's 55.00%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
13.64%
EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 57.14%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
15.00%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 52.38%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.84%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-1.25%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
1.58%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.94%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
150.00%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
185.53%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
118.59%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 8.03%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
121.41%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
89.07%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
95.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 282.86%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
263.88%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
584.66%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
209.42%
Below 50% of MRVL's 443.41%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
407.77%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 99.38%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
325.96%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 21.62%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
142.26%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 44.45%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
39.06%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
29.74%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
65.59%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
24.28%
AR growth well above MRVL's 4.07%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
4.14%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-0.09%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-3.41%
We have a declining book value while MRVL shows 0.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-6.20%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.22%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
7.03%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 0.81%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.